Trident Doesn't Work.

[Gromit]

A test firing of the UKs defense missile system in June was a failure. Apparently due to a cock-up with Google Maps, instead of targetting Russia, it actually hit Rusholme. There were no reports of any damage.

Interestingly, the misfire was hushed up and was not known to the majority of MPs who voted to renew it in July.

The Prime Minister refuses to say whether she knew of the apparent malfunction, when she voted. Asked several times, Mrs May refused to answer.

Should this information have been made known to MPs before they voted?
Would the result have been different if the truth was known?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38708823

[ichkeria]

Just to reiterate of course that the UK system itself was not at fault anyway ...

I don't think it really matters to be honest. We are talking about a deterrent and a desperate situation. As long as the other side, whoever that may be, thinks it might work ...

[jno]

the question isn't whether a missile system has achieved perfection; it's whether MPs should have been told the situation before they voted.

[ichkeria]

That implies that the failed test ought to have some bearing on the debate into the principle of Brtian's indfependent nuclear deterrent.
Of course in reality, aside from the US request, no doubt they thought it would be better to keep quiet about it and I don;t blame them, as a lot of adding of 2 and 2o to make at least 5 would have been done by various people.
The problem is that in keeping quiet is that it can cause embarrassment later if it gets out, and protocol dictates that you cannot comment.

[jno]

it wasn't a debate on the principle, though. It was about spending £40bn, and MPs voted without knowing the truth.

[-Talbot-]

The vote was for renewing the submarines not the warheads.

[andy-hughes]

ichkeria - //Just to reiterate of course that the UK system itself was not at fault anyway ... //

That appears to be a semantic point, but it is an important one.

If you were a solider and you fired at your enemy and the bullet steered off course and didn't hit him, would you be keen to point out that it was ok because the gun worked?

// I don't think it really matters to be honest. We are talking about a deterrent and a desperate situation. As long as the other side, whoever that may be, thinks it might work ... //

If you use that argument, then why bother testing anything ever? In fact, why not just have one submarine with one missile?

[Gromit]

As it is, we are committed to spending £40billion on new submarines, and the weapon it will carry may not work as expected.

On the subject of being kept in the dark, I think most people assumed the £40billion included the missiles, which apparently it does not. We have 16 missiles which cost £75million each. Will we have to have new missiles for the new submarines, or will the old ones (which may not work) be fitted into the new submarines, and at what cost?

[ichkeria]

"it wasn't a debate on the principle, though. It was about spending £40bn, and MPs voted without knowing the truth. "

it's my belief, knowing only as much as anyone else, here, that the "truth" about the firing (which I am happy to admit probably should have been owned up to) should not have been relevant to the debate. It "would" doubtless have been used by some as an argument against the new submarines.

[Ellipsis]

> MPs voted without knowing the truth

What truth do they need? MPs know that the missiles are tested. This means that the missiles might fail the test. If the test is passed 999 times in a row, that doesn't mean it the next test will be passed - otherwise the test is not worth doing. What if the vote had been before the failure ... should they vote again?

The truth is that missiles might fail. That's all that MPs needed to know in order to vote, and they did know that. They don't need to know that a particular test failed, or why it failed, especially as such knowledge could be useful to the enemy at the time ... less useful now, fortunately.